Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Healthc Manag ; 65(4): 273-283, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32639321

RESUMO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We sought to determine emergency medicine physicians' accuracy in designating patients' disposition status as "inpatient" or "observation" at the time of hospital admission in the context of Medicare's Two-Midnight rule and to identify characteristics that may improve the providers' predictions. We conducted a 90-day observational study of emergency department (ED) admissions involving adults aged 65 years and older and assessed the accuracy of physicians' disposition decisions. Logistic regression models were fit to explore associations and predictors of disposition. A total of 2,257 patients 65 and older were admitted through the ED. The overall error rate in physician designation of observation or inpatient was 36%. Diagnoses most strongly associated with stays lasting less than two midnights included diverticulitis, syncope, and nonspecific chest pain. Diagnoses most strongly associated with stays lasting two or more midnights included orthopedic fractures, biliary tract disease, and back pain. ED physicians inaccurately predicted patient length of stay in more than one third of all patients. Under the Two-Midnight rule, these inaccurate predictions place hospitals at risk of underpayment and patients at risk of significant financial liability. Further work is needed to increase providers' awareness of the financial repercussions of their admission designations and to identify interventions that can improve prediction accuracy.


Assuntos
Hospitalização , Tempo de Internação/economia , Tempo de Internação/tendências , Medicare/economia , Medicare/legislação & jurisprudência , Mecanismo de Reembolso/economia , Mecanismo de Reembolso/legislação & jurisprudência , Idoso , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Previsões , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Auditoria Médica , Estados Unidos
2.
Urology ; 146: 19-24, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32916186

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors associated with iatrogenic ureteral injury litigation and outcomes. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was queried for all iatrogenic ureteral injury cases. Variables extracted included available clinical factors, method of settlement, and litigation outcomes. Linear regression analysis was conducted to examine factors associated with award amount. RESULTS: A total of 522 cases from 1961 to 2019 were included in the study. The most common specialty named was gynecology (353/512, 68.9%), followed by urology (89/512, 17.4%). The most common claim was intraoperative negligence (474/522 cases, 90.8%). Fifty two cases were settled or arbitrated and 470 went to trial. Settlement or arbitration was more likely in cases involving institution-only defendant (15.4% vs 7.3%, P< .01), academic institution (19.7% vs 7.1%, P < .01), and patient death (42.9% vs 10.7%; P < .001). Of cases that went to trial, the verdict favored the defendant in 339/470 cases (72.1%). The median award was $552,822.96 (interquartile range 187,007-1,063,603). Duration of temporary drainage ($5050/day, P = .02), delayed repair (P = .03), claim of inadequate workup (P = .03), and claim of failure to supervise trainee (P < .001) were significantly associated with increasing award amount. CONCLUSION: The majority of ureteral injury litigation ruled in favor of the defendant. However, when awarded, the amount was substantial and correlated with drainage duration, delayed repair, claim of inadequate workup, and failure to supervise trainee. These findings highlight factors perceived to be associated with significant distress and reflect trends in medicolegal decision-making.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados Factuais , Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Ureter/lesões , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa